Good afternoon and welcome to Pittsburgh City Council's Cable Cast public hearing for Thursday, June 25th, 2026, relative to Bill 531.

Would a clerk please read the title of the bill?

Resolution authorizing the adoption of the downtown Pittsburgh Translate Revitalization Investment District Implementation Plan and Related Agreements.

Council District 1.

Thank you.

For the record, we are currently joined by Councilman Wilson, Councilwoman Warwick, and I believe Councilman Mosley is also joined us online.

Our first registered speaker is Callie De Sabato, followed by Jason Rona.

Is Callie with us?

If not, is Jason Rona with us.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Jason Rona.

Uh, I am a commercial real estate attorney at Meyer Onkovic and Scott.

Our headquarters is in the still building.

Thank you for the opportunity today.

Um, in addition to being a commercial real estate attorney, I have the privilege of serving as treasurer of the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership.

In my real estate practice, I focus on complex redevelopment transactions in the city and have had the privilege of working with several of you on projects in your districts.

At the PDP, I have the privilege of having a front row seat on how our public resources support downtown vibrancy.

This is by many mechanisms, including the bid tax that funds our safety and cleanliness programs at the PDP.

I speak from both perspectives today, and from both the messages the same.

We can preserve the existing tax base while demonstrating that Pittsburgh is ready to embrace economic development and public reinvestment.

The TRID legislation does exactly that.

The TRID captures only the incremental tax value created by the new development, such that the existing tax base is preserved.

While protecting the tax base, the TRID will signal to private investors, which are presently on the sidelines being courted by competitor cities that we can help address the hardest part of their project, closing the gap in their capital stack, thereby moving projects from term sheet to ribbon cutting.

Beyond the headline projects, the TRID creates a dedicated funding stream for the type of investments that make people want to come to downtown Pittsburgh.

This includes investments in lighting, sidewalks, small business support, residential conversions, affordable housing, and public infrastructure improvements.

These community-focused investments will make private redevelopments stick and send a signal to private capital that their investment in Pittsburgh is safe.

The attendant growth will generate more investment, and that investment supports more growth at every scale from mixed-use redevelopment to a neighborhood storefront.

This cycle is the exact opposite of the doom loop that has dominated discussions in our city since COVID.

In sum, this is nothing short of a critical moment in the history of our city.

Downtown must convert from an office district to a 24-7 neighborhood to ensure that the region's economic engine thrives and that new investment enters the Golden Triangle.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Jobs and jobs are the most important thing for my membership and the building trades.

For my membership, an area standard wage that sustains households in these tough economic times that the programs we work with, Pittsburgh Public Breaking the Chains, Poverty Car Program, TIP, Trade Institute of Pittsburgh Intro to Trade to name a few.

But if we continue to allow developers and contractors like Woe to Coupa, RDC, PMC, Franjo to name a few to use the exploited workforce tax fraud model.

There won't be opportunities for them to work in these projects.

We are a better city than that.

Or are we a city that just wants groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings?

I believe if we want to grow our city, we need the TRID for jobs.

Buying houses for our people in the communities, our underserved neighborhoods to build our tax base.

And we also need these developers and contractors to change their business models to make our city the most livable city in the country.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jackie Smith, followed by Jeremiah Waldrup.

Hello, council members.

My name is Jackie Smith, and I'm a resident of the Park Place neighborhood.

I also serve on the board of the Human Rights City Alliance.

And I'm here to urge you to vote no on the TRID initiative.

This proposal is asking you to gamble with taxpayer money and to commit current and future taxpayers to paying for projects that may or may not pay off, either in terms of finance or in terms of the benefits for all residents of our neighborhoods.

I recommend that the council request the mayor's office and the URA to provide compelling evidence to back up assumptions that this is a good gamble.

That the proposed investment district will deliver the real benefits that all residents of our city need, not just those who stand to benefit directly from the downtown redevelopment and growth.

We're being told that there's an urgent need to redevelop downtown and that this needs to take precedence over other long-standing and truly urgent needs like affordable housing.

The public deserves to hear the case for why this kind of downtown development should be prioritized over other parts of the city.

And we need to see evidence that this growth downtown is really going to trickle down to the rest of us.

We're also being told that the only way to finance what the city needs is through this kind of speculative development, which puts additional burdens of interest payments on taxpayers.

Why aren't we considering other possible tools that the city can use to generate revenues like its tax policies?

Finally, how can we be certain that the promised benefits of this proposal in terms of equity and sustainability will actually be realized?

There needs to be a lot more transparency in how these funds will be allocated.

Placing the decision-making authority in the hands of an unelected body is unlikely to help our city confront the very real challenges we have in terms of racial disparity, growing inequality, and worsening impacts of climate change.

The human rights city alliance is part of a growing global movement whose motto is human rights don't trickle down, they rise up.

People know that trickle-down economics doesn't work, and even leading economists are admitting this.

The rising tide of economic growth doesn't automatically lift all votes.

It takes people and responsible political leadership to make sure that our policies support a city that enables residents of all of our neighborhoods to live meaningful and dignified lives.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jeremy Waldrup.

I'm here on behalf of the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership and live in the city's neighborhood of friendship.

The Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership supports the proposed TRID because it can help move downtown closer to the kind of neighborhood we all want to see.

One with better infrastructure, encouraging more residents, more street level activity, stronger and more welcoming public spaces, and continued reinvestment in the historic and economic core of our region.

The TRID will help strengthen our economy, accelerate office to residential conversions, and help build a more economically diverse and resilient neighborhood.

That is essential to our collective vision of doubling downtown's residential population by 2035 and further stabilizing the commercial office market, making this neighborhood again more resilient and diverse.

As the most walkable and transit-rich neighborhood in the region, downtown needs more resources to support high-quality public and private investments.

For major infrastructure investments like the soon-to-begin Phase 1 Smithfield Street reconstruction project to transit infrastructure, we continue to struggle with the dedicated with dedicated revenue to make meaningful investments and provide long-term maintenance strategies to keep things nice.

Additionally, downtown has millions of square feet of underutilized office space.

These buildings will languish without public support and the preservation and revitalization of these assets are critical to the long-term economic health of downtown.

The TRID is exactly the right tool for this moment.

It harnesses the growth that our downtown is on the cusp of generating and reinvests it right back into the neighborhood.

But a financing mechanism is only as strong as the vision behind it.

As property values rise and development accelerates, we can deliberately channel it into the businesses, workers, and entrepreneurs who give downtown its energy and identity.

This is our opportunity to make sure that every dollar of growth downtown creates and enables more opportunity for people to invest in that work and to call it home.

The success of downtown is critical for our region, and the TRID gives us a stronger foundation.

I look forward to working with council to ensure we build something worthy of it for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to return to Callie DeSabato, and I also want the record to reflect that we've been joined by Councilman Charlotte and Councilwoman Gross.

Hello, can you all hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

My name is Callie DeSabateau.

I live in the North Side, and I'm also a member of the Northside Neighborhood Assembly.

I am not feeling great these days about how our federal politicians are spending our tax dollars, and I'm feeling pretty suspicious about the spending decisions being considered here today at the local level as well.

I was an English teacher.

My background is not in finance, and I don't fully understand everything behind this tax diversion, which feels like it's being rushed through without giving the public enough time to even know that it's happening, much less grasp the full implications of what it means.

I have a few questions.

How much would be invested in public infrastructure compared to private for-profit projects?

How many of those potential recipients relying on public dollars to close for-profit funding gaps are currently fighting their tax contributions to our city?

Why is affordable housing expansion not a central part of this plan?

I see a chasm between what is happening in this room and what is happening in our city, prioritizing corporate projects over the material needs of the public.

One major material need not being met with this trade proposal, dramatically expanding affordable housing.

City officials who are not working aggressively to expand affordable and dignified housing in Pittsburgh are out of touch with the massive portion of this city that is struggling right now.

We have a manufactured high housing crisis in our city, and just because it's manufactured doesn't mean that people aren't living this crisis every single night.

How many of our neighbors face housing insecurity or are struggling to make rent or cannot find a place in our city that they can afford the rent, or they're unable to become a homeowner and realize the potential of Pittsburgh's claims of affordability.

Right now, I feel very distrustful.

I'm seeing a city government fast track a 40-year-old, 40-year deal that prioritizes corporate project projects instead of the needs of regular people who could be on the hook to pay off the bondholders if the projected dollars don't pan out.

Here's what I see.

The same city council that is comfortable allowing huge losses and annual potential tax revenue by maintaining a glut of unoccupied, undertaxed short-term rentals, which are primarily owned by corporate investors, is also fast-tracking a potentially risky public investment that is locked in for the next 40 years.

It doesn't feel great, you guys.

It doesn't feel great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Maddie McGrady, followed by Alyssa Grishman.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Matty McGrady.

Um I'm a city taxpayer and renter in Highland Park and a co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table.

We're a coalition of organizations and advocates working together to bring healthy, affordable and accessible housing within reach to all as a human right.

The implications of the downtown TRID proposal for city residents and taxpayers are significant.

And we have a number of questions and concerns that we believe it is incumbent upon the mayor's office, city council, and the URA to address for the public record.

First of all, where is the transparency and where is the community engagement around this besides behind closed doors with developers?

The implementation plan is not publicly available on the URAth website, as far as I can tell, and appears to have been approved by the URA with zero public input.

The PA TRID Act governing this proposal is explicit that community engagement and education around a TRID is required before implementation and before commissioning a planning study.

Has the planning study been completed?

If so, where was that required public hearing?

Where was the community engagement?

Secondly, I understand the TRID as a tool is potentially politically neutral, but the details and implementation of it matter greatly.

Looking at the specific implementation plan, it would appear to invest just 20% of the money borrowed into public infrastructure.

And 80% would be invested in what appear to be private for-profit real estate projects, some of which appear to be already selected.

The public deserves to know.

Why should we allow money to be borrowed in our name and invested in these specific private real estate projects?

How are these projects being selected and what's in it for us?

Please do explain to the public.

How is this not a bailout of private real estate with public money and no strings attached?

Welfare for the rich, market capitalism for the working class and poor.

We know this playbook, and we're tired of it failing to deliver for working families.

I understand that downtown real estate was hit hard by the pandemic.

So was everyone else.

Why should the public bail out these large private for-profit businesses?

Meanwhile, we're getting evicted.

Our homes are being foreclosed on, our local businesses are shuttering, our public transit is being cut, and many of our most vulnerable residents have lost food and medical assistance.

This proposal is deeply lacking transparency and democratic engagement, and the public deserves better.

If public money is paying for it, then it needs to be accountable to the public.

At this time, we urge council to vote no on the downtown trip.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alysha Grishman.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, my name is Alisa Grishman.

I live in Uptown.

I am the founder and director of Access Mob Pittsburgh, and I sit on the board of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, amongst other organizations.

Everything that I wanted to say was said by the previous person by Jackie.

I cannot say enough how opposed I am to the TRID as it is right now.

The big thing that I want to add that I'm sure others will say later is it's supposed to be a transit revitalization investment district.

And yet there is only vague in the language of what's going on, what how this is going to improve transit, um, because there's been a lack of transparency and meaningful you know dialogue with the community, but only 20% of the infrastructure uh or of the resources right now are going towards public infrastructure.

The city has 90 neighborhoods.

Uh you know, we need to focus on more than just downtown.

We need to focus on uh helping poor and low-income.

I'm scattered today.

I apologize, I don't have anything better, so I will cut off here, but please vote no on the TRID.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dean.

Um say it for me.

Mudiannis, thank you very much.

Yeah, it's hi, it's from Janice.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Um I'm Dean McJanis.

I live in the South Side.

I am uh a longtime member and a board member of Pittsburghers for public transit.

Um I'm testifying today to urge council to vote no on the TRID project.

Um the URA's um guidelines document for TRID projects states this TRID projects are primarily transit-related public infrastructure improvements.

Um, as has been previously noted, um uh according to the budgeting that exists um in the uh um the the document that uh um we've seen 20% is um earmarked for public transit.

However, um the the other more public um uh items uh are very specific in that document.

Um there's specific partials, there's specific budget amounts, um, and these are uh as has been noted um primarily um private uh improvements um by uh real estate developers.

Here's what it says in in the document about public transit.

The TRID framework supports investments in transit supportive infrastructure, including improved pedestrian connections to transit stations, enhance streetscapes along key corridors, station area improvements, and public realm upgrades that increase safety and accessibility for transit riders.

Um excuse me for being blunt, but there is no meat on those bones.

Um this is um this is clearly, I believe, um, an inappropriate use of the trade program, which was put into place um to help communities, to help neighborhoods.

Um you can um name any number of which that would benefit by this kind of uh program.

Mount Oliver Allen uh Allentown, uh West End, Lincoln Laram.

Um, and this is not the right tool um to be employed to help large uh downtown real estate interests.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Laura Wings, followed by Laura Perkins.

Hi there.

My name is Laura Chew Weens.

I'm the executive director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

We are grassroots union of transit riders and workers organizing for more accessible, affordable, and expanded transit.

Our office is in uh Ellsworth Avenue in Shady Side.

And I'm here today because council is considering passing a policy mechanism that is even in its name meant to serve public transit needs and public infrastructure investments.

Instead, the city is considering using this mechanism, the transit revitalization investment district, to execute something wildly different.

The downtown TRID would have city taxpayers take out a huge loan to hand out tens of millions of dollars with no public obligations attached to a handful of real estate developers in downtown the strip district and the North Shore.

This loan for which our city and future elected officials and our children will be on the hook, will be received as a grant by a dozen wealth uh by wealthy corporations, and then we are gambling on the availability of future tax revenue to pay down the debt that our city leaders are proposing to incur.

At a time of concurrent budget crises in the city of Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Public School District in Allegheny County, it is absolutely wild that our public bodies are considering lining the pockets of downtown real estate moguls as the highest and best use of our limited shared tax resources over the next 40 years.

There are no shortage of needs that our communities have right now, including for better public transit infrastructure, for affordable housing, for small business investment, for local food initiatives, for repairs and improvements to our streets and sidewalk.

This proposal forecloses our city's ability to address them now and in the future.

This is profoundly undemocratic.

For such a costly and consequential policy, there's been almost no information provided to the public.

And we are robbing future city leaders and the public over the next 40 years of these hundreds of millions of dollars and the decision making power of how to allocate them.

Public investments should be determined through the annual city budget process with robust public input to ensure that tax resources are distributed equitably across neighborhoods and address the needs of the moment.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gross, for daylighting this hugely consequential proposal, which otherwise would have proceeded with absolutely no public attention or oversight.

Thank you, Councilwoman Warwick, for saying so clearly and publicly that you will vote no.

As Pittsburgh is for public transit, we stand firmly opposed and call on council members to vote down the downtown TRID.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Laura Perkins.

Hi there, Laura Perkins.

I'm a Bloomfield resident, uh concerned about affordable housing and public transit.

I'm here to ask you to vote no on bill 2020 2026 053.

One supporting TRID TRID.

Please vote no on that bill.

And I ask you to vote no for three reasons.

One, a lack of transparency and community involvement.

Two, the city of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Public Schools cannot afford hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money.

And three, um, it is not the intention of the original state law, and it's not what Pittsburgh needs.

So talking about transparency and community involvement.

Uh section 901 of the PA TRID Act requires at least one public meeting.

When did that happen?

Can anyone tell me?

We'd like to know.

I think a lot of people here would like to know.

Second, uh, where is the TRID planning study?

Uh, we'd like to see that.

Um, I think those two things which are legally required indicate um how little transparency there has been and why it's why this should not be fast tracked at all.

Um we're very concerned because this is 40 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Secondly, uh referring to the um how we can't afford this.

Um I live across from Wool Slayer Elementary.

Um it is one of the schools um that will be closed.

Um, the closing of the schools um hopes to save 1008 million dollars annually.

Um, and I know city council is not responsible for this, but our children are our concern.

Uh, TRID would take money away from our city and schools when we know it is desperately needed.

Um so we can look at another TRID project um to guide us in guessing uh what might happen since due to the lack of transparency.

Um, and according to the Allegheny Institute of Public Policy, which uh is a very libertarian entity, um they say, and I quote uh that um the other TRID project on the North Shore quote have done little or nothing to address the root causes of long-term population loss and very anemic job growth.

Families with school aged kids were driven away.

So um when uh other public commenters from the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership speak about jobs, uh this is not solving that problem.

Um, thirdly, um the original intention of the TRID Act, don't worry, I have I have it to quote.

Um, the original intention is to achieve transit-oriented development, community revitalization.

Um, and I'm gonna skip a little bit because I'm running out of time, and public transportation capital improvement.

We want those things.

This is not going to solve those issues.

Uh, we want affordable housing, we want direct investment in public transit.

Um, I urge you to meet with members of these organizations that are making public comment to learn about how we can address those, but putting money in the pockets of private development developers will not solve those problems.

Um, I urge you to vote no on TRID.

We have real issues in Pittsburgh, and TRID will not solve any of them.

It will exacerbate them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Henderson, followed by Andrew Hussain.

Is Pamela Henderson with us?

If not, is Andrew Hussain with us.

If not, Jackie Smith.

I'll come back to them.

Ms.

Smith.

Oh, she spoke.

Loretta Payne.

Good afternoon.

My name is Liretta Penn, a resident of the Hill District, a co-chair of Pittsburgh Human Rights City Alliance, and a member of the Hill District Consensus Group.

Council members, let's call this what it is.

Supply side economics, or trickle-down economics, or it's also been called horse and sparrow economics.

So this loan to wealthy developers and corporations will eventually trickle down.

That's what we've been told.

And ladies and gentlemen, sometime past behavior can dictate future behavior.

For example, downtown has been developed for the last 75 years.

And the proof is the displacement and the gentrification of the Hill District with over 8,000 families being displaced.

So that's the history that we have regarding the city of Pittsburgh residents getting promised that this regarding this trickle-down economics and so far for the Hill District at least, it hasn't worked well.

So my recommendation is this that we pause this vote so we can have more public input.

And I would also remind everyone that downtown is losing tax base as well.

But the city as a whole, the residents as a whole should make that decision as to where the money should be spent best, not behind closed doors.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andrew Deerolf, followed by Colleen Deerolf.

Our next speaker then is John Robinson.

Our next speaker is Sean Pastor.

Our next speaker is Marcia Bandis.

Thank you.

Yes, my name is Marcia Bandies.

I'm from Squirrel Hill, and uh a number of the other people have articulated many of the issues already.

Um so I'm gonna uh go after a different point that bothers me.

I am here to oppose any of the Pittsburgh schools' real estate taxes going to the downtown transit revitalization investment district funds, TRID.

The district mission, our school district mission, the Pittsburgh Public Schools will be one of America's premier school districts, student focused, well managed and innovative.

We will hold ourselves accountable for preparing all children to achieve academic excellence.

What does that have to do with housing downtown?

There aren't any schools real, I mean there's Kappa and there's a and there's a charter high school.

There are not, that's not a neighborhood.

Um, the district believes central office exists to serve students and schools.

We should not be using their tax dollars for their real estate tax dollars in this way.

Um downtown TRID is to convert office buildings into apartments with retail and other supporting infrastructure.

Now I have to ask you what do downtown apartments have to do with the mission of our school district.

For example, the recent groundbreaking event to launch the Smithfield WAFs will result in 46 new apartments, 39 will be affordable, four will be studio, 25 are one bedroom, and 17 will be two bedroom.

The two bedroom apartments will be popular with couples who want a home office.

And even if they do start a family, where are the schools?

And if you have given your school real estate tax dollars for their apartments rather than improving school outcomes in Pittsburgh, they're going to take their family to the burbs.

I'm not saying that the city and county want to accomplish isn't important.

It is important, it is needed, but it's not the responsibility of our Pittsburgh School District to fund it with their much needed real estate taxes.

URA needs to find their funding elsewhere.

The schools, the teachers, the students and families need every penny to improve the outcomes of our children.

Whereas both the charter and private schools manage to place invisible borders around who they are capable of accepting, PPS provides an education to all children, as they should.

And along with this responsibility comes the need for special child support, whether it be smaller classes, trauma-trained teachers to recognize when a child needs extra support, trained resources to provide that first line of support, at the same time providing opportunities to the children who have mastered the basics and are ready for the next challenge.

They might need supplies, they might need special equipment.

My point is that they don't need more senior housing downtown.

They they need more housing in their neighborhoods.

So remove school real estate taxes from your equation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dan Danielle Weiner, followed by Matthew Carter or Cartier.

Hello, my name is Danielle Wenner.

I'm a resident of Polish Hill, and I'm also the associate director of the Center for Ethics and Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

And I'm here to urge uh council to reject this proposal.

The proposal before council aims to take anticipated new tax revenues from new developments in the strip, downtown, and the north shore, and effectively divert those anticipated revenues into the development of downtown in particular.

If we set aside anticipated increased tax revenues from development in the strip, which is easily one of the hottest areas for growth over the last several years, and earmark those revenues for only one area of the city, we are effectively cutting the rest of the city out of the benefits of economic growth.

But those new revenues belong to all of us.

The explosion of growth in the strip district could only happen with the use of infrastructure that we all depend on.

The construction is done by workers who live throughout the city.

The new businesses that line the terminal depend on service workers who commute into the strip from all over, from Homewood, from Hazelwood and Beachview.

Similarly, growth in the Golden Triangle requires contributions from workers who live and go to school and raise their kids all over the city.

But the city proposes to withhold from their neighborhoods their share of new revenues that will be made on the backs of their labor.

With this TRID proposal, what is really on offer is a chance to carve up this city into ever smaller hyper-local tax bases, which will effectively function to limit who benefits from the gains of Pittsburgh's growth and determine which neighborhoods and business districts are resigned to growing disinvestment and blight.

Further entrenching economic segregation, when we should be looking to improve the city for everyone.

The tax revenues generated by development belong to the entire city and its population.

They are revenues that could be used to address our crumbling infrastructure, replace our failing vehicle fleet, or support our underfunded schools.

There are two failing bridges in my neighborhood alone, which are both multiple years overdue for massive rebuild or refurbishment.

When you earmark big chunks of our future tax revenues to one area of the city and to developers in that area of the city in particular, you are proposing to deprive the rest of us of access to those funds for needed projects.

The last thing I want to say is to echo earlier speakers.

This proposal has gone through a lot of process with almost zero meaningful engagement with the public.

I learned about the TRID plan two days ago.

This was not posted on the URA's website.

There does not appear to have been any meaningful opportunity for the public to review the plan prior to the URA board approving it.

And as far as anyone seems to know, the plan only became available to the public once it was posted to the city council's legislative website in late May, even though URA approved the plan in early April.

This is a plan to use hundreds of millions of public tax dollars with major implications that will last for decades.

This kind of thing should be transparent and it should involve accessible, meaningful opportunity for public review and engagement.

Pushing this through at this pace and without that kind of public engagement is not only irresponsible, it signals serious disrespect for the citizens of the city.

Our next speaker is Matthew Cart Cartier.

Hi, yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

I live in Greenfield.

I'm just some guy, uh, but I am uh very firmly opposed to uh this legislation members, council will vote no.

Um I think that in a city that is so intent on talking about the uh the ethic of being each other's neighbor and Fred Rogers and we're you know, we're all neighbors here, that this plan really runs counter to that ethic in balconizing city tax revenues um, you know, from one place and concentrating them all in the downtown golden triangle, whatever you want to call it.

That money you know rightly belongs to all city residents.

If this trade were to be a windfall, which I really don't think is you know likely to be the case, but if it were, the benefits of it would be would be concentrated among very, very few people.

Um, and I I think that's sort of counterintuitive to the concept of living in a city in a city or a society in general.

Um, I don't believe that the URA and developers in question will be a responsible steward of this money, and I would and I would urge council to consider why they're removing themselves from the equation when they have the option to help steer where these funds would go going forward.

Um, borrowing this money against alleged future revenues when the money is going into a black hole is extremely irresponsible.

Um, I think that you know, even if this tax increase does happen, like why wouldn't council want to control the direction of that money?

The city needs so many things.

Um, I'm not sure that closing the gaps on balance sheets of a few private developers is needs to be our highest priority.

Uh, if the downtown partnership and others want this money, I think that they should frankly put up or shut up.

Show us the projects that are actually going to go from term sheets to ribbon cutting.

And if they can't do that, then they shouldn't get this money.

And additionally, uh to echo a previous speaker, the way that this process has gone sort of uh without much notice to the public.

Uh I also learned about this very recently, um, is completely unacceptable.

This is hundreds of millions of dollars, and I'm curious as to why council would want to move it along with such haste when it's clearly such a big decision.

I work downtown and I commute there by bicycle.

Um, if this transit revitalization improvement district is supposedly about transit, there are plenty of places downtown where this money could be used for that.

But instead, 80% of it is being earmarked for developers who, frankly, haven't delivered in the past five to ten years, and it doesn't look like we'll continue to.

Um, I it's unclear why the split is so skewed when you know uh there are plenty of places where some additional pedestrian infrastructure would prevent me from getting murdered by an errant driver.

Ultimately, this proposal unaccountably lines the pockets of people to whom some of you and the mayor clearly owe some substantial favors.

I think council should maintain oversight of these funds.

The downtown partnership and supporters are selling your bridge in Brooklyn, and I would encourage you not to buy it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Cooper.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Thank you.

My name is John Cooper.

I live on Edgerton Avenue in Park Place.

I'm a nurse, a former employee of the food bank, and I have two children and TPS elementary.

I am against the trid because times are tough for those of us who are going to be paying for it.

In my job as a public school nurse, I see the scale of needs of families in our region.

Children often come to school hungry.

Children very often are missing needed health care appointments because their families can't afford it.

I tend to kids whose families have faced evictions, and those who are on house because our region has an affordable housing crisis.

This isn't a problem just facing renters.

Earlier this month, there was a news report about foreclosures nearly doubling in our region compared to one year ago.

Over the last year and a half, uh my family has been impacted by and is carefully considered the budget issues affecting the city of Pittsburgh, Mr.

Public, and Allegheny County.

We're getting hit with rising utility costs and groceries.

Even with all that, and even because of it, I expressed my support for the tax increases on residents like me in both the city and the county.

I did that because I know that our public bodies need to be fully funded in order to support our neighbors and provide basic needs for food, housing, child care, safe infrastructure.

This is why it's pretty appalling to me that in the midst of this crisis, our city council and our school district and our county have been quietly advancing a proposal to take up to 200 million dollars of our already insufficient tax revenue and give it to private developers.

That's our money, and it's the next 40 years worth of it.

That revenue should go into public coffers and distributed equitably to meet the current and future needs of all of our neighborhoods.

Instead, it will be lining the pockets of a few downtown developers.

Councilmember Mosley, how does this proposal benefit our district at all?

There are urgent investment needs for small businesses and homeland for infrastructure improvements in our district that aren't being funded.

Just this week there was a new sinkhole in our neighborhood.

You express concern about the proposal to raise taxes on Pittsburgh residents in December to close the budget gap.

That concern feels laughable if council votes to proceed with subsidizing a few downtown developers at the expense of every other Pittsburgh community for the next 40 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm now have Verna Johnson, followed by Bill McDowell.

Well, see Vernas online.

Yes, we can hear you.

Uh my name is Alvarna Johnson, as you said.

I live in the East Liberty, I mean East Liberty Lincoln, Belmore area of the East Labor.

Um I uh appreciate the council giving us this time to talk about a very serious problem.

I feel that this would be a burden to future generations, even present generations in the city of Pittsburgh.

Um it doesn't seem like throwing money at a problem is a solution, and it's certainly not a solution when you give it to developers that are for profit.

I think that um we should have transparency that all the public should know about this, and all the public should weigh in on it.

So I asked uh city council, would you please not not say no to voting for this?

And I also want to talk to my councilman Mosley.

I would hope that you would understand that this money could go not this amount of money, 200 million dollars is just utterly ridiculous.

When this city is in crisis already, and we're gonna just put ourselves deeper into debt and then put the burden on other generations.

It's just not right.

And I hope that you'll see what I'm saying, Councilman Mosley and the rest of the council, City Council, Pittsburgh.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill McDowell, followed by Randy Kelly.

Good afternoon.

I'm Bill McDowell and I live in the north side of Pittsburgh.

I want to strongly urge council members to vote no on the trid.

As council members, you should be investing future tax dollars in your districts and in the people who elected you.

No city tax money should go to private developers.

Question to councillor um uh Wilson.

How does subsidizing private developers in downtown benefit your district, our neighbors, or myself?

We desperately need sidewalks repaired all over Northside and elsewhere.

And I'm sure that there are parents in your district who could be helped by child care assistants.

Councilors, show concern for other critical projects within your district.

If you put futures and city tax dollars toward downtown, how will this trip meet the needs of our of your constituents?

This trip is primarily intended for public transportation, and yet it is vague about transit and private improvement.

And it intends only 20% of resources to go toward public infrastructure.

If you pass this trip, what stipulations and conditions will you place upon downtown developers which will benefit city residents?

What oversight will residents have to hold downtown developers accountable for the millions of dollars given to them.

Finally, again I urge council to vote no on this trip.

We should not mortgage the entire city's long-term future on town on one downtown or private developers.

And lastly, I'm going to say I agree with uh everyone else about the transparency.

We need to have greater public needs to have greater transparency on this issue beforehand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Randy Kelly.

If not, the last register speaker I have is registered as ACTC.

All right, let me run back through the list.

Has Pamela Henderson joined us.

No.

Andrew Hussain.

Yes, hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Uh yes, but good afternoon.

Um I keep this section brief for myself, but as others have already said, the uh process or lack of process in this trade has been horrendous and frankly unlawful.

Anyone who spoke earlier in favor of this plan should be shameful ashamed of themselves because not only is this process been despicable and bypassed all kinds of guide rails and processes.

But furthermore, as many have said today, you're missing the first part of what a trade is supposed to be, which is transit.

And this plan, as it's been presented to the public for only a brief few days.

Of transit, and it mainly has to do with infrastructure.

There's nothing in here about how this is helping transit and the amount to which is to go to public transit and other stuff.

It is simply a joke.

This is not a trick.

This is literally a project to grab money and rob people in the city for the next four decades.

Masquerading as a trip.

There is nothing trip about this.

Oh, I don't even know if there's anything RID about this.

You're missing the entire point of the trip with that.

And I urge council to add a bare minimum delay of vote until public input can be had, or to totally say no to this plan as it stands.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That either I drew Andrew or Colleen Deerwolf.

John Robinson or Sean Pasteur.

So that exhausts our list of registered speakers.

If there's anyone else in chambers wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Provide your name and neighborhood for the record.

You may come.

Hello, council.

My name is Greg Hamrick.

I found out about this yesterday on Reddit.

Um, and this is being rushed through.

I grew up in the 2009 crash.

Nothing but corporate welfare and bailouts my whole life.

This is a transit bill, 20%.

This has been very illuminating.

It's my first time attending.

I think we should all be civically engaged.

The fact that I've noticed a lot of the council members could barely look up and look at the speakers looking down.

I don't know, a shame.

You should be ashamed.

Pushing this through.

I urge you to vote no at the very least.

Wait till the public knows about it.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Council.

Um Tim Stevens, Chairman of our chairman, the CEO of Black Political Empowerment Project BP, founder.

I just wanted all of you to I've been listening for quite a while.

I don't think anyone has supported this thing.

So I would hope that you would take into consideration as you deliberate the comments from the public.

You may even want to consider meeting with organizations that are dealing with this at the table personally in direct conversation with the transit groups and others who are dealing with this.

The concern that I have from uh listening is the use of public dollars at the level that seem to be benefiting primarily private enterprise and not very much the public and with the problems that we have in the city, problems we have with our school board financially.

We want to make sure that our funds are being used to support housing, transit and health, any other issues that we have in our citizenry of Pittsburgh, and really have your focus on the citizens of Pittsburgh more than the developers of Pittsburgh, although they need support.

But right now, it seems like this approach is aimed more for developers than the benefit of the citizens of Pittsburgh.

So we ask that you maybe even consider having a meeting with those who are dealing with this on a regular basis and see if you can come to a resolution that might be more appropriate, might be more fair to the citizens of Pittsburgh that you that you serve, and that the public dollars are being invested across our communities at a level that would be fair and appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, Rick Smith, North Oakland District 8.

Um, not in support of this resolution.

Really get the sense with the wisdom in this room that there are programs that could come together that which would serve the city in a more amplified way.

Um interesting to learn about this as a financing device and and seeing its potential.

For a project of this magnitude, I'd really look for um who's driving the bus to be more out of the mayor, putting uh uh cohesive picture together of driving Pittsburgh forward than then coming out of the URA.

Um so thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker, please.

Seeing no further speakers, I'll offer members a moment to give comment if they would like.

If not, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

Thanks for chairing this meeting, and thank you all that came out to speak.

I know we have the URA here as well.

Want to make sure that you all recognized uh since obviously your name was dropped several times.

Uh I think for me, you know, initially when I heard about this, I was a bit um, you know, was a bit, you know, I just had a lot of questions about how this would work.

And so working through it, I think that's been important.

I think we're all kind of going through that together here.

I I'm hearing a lot of language that um definitely you know energizes a lot of people, especially whenever it it sounds like we're giving money away to developers, and I was was questioned that as well.

And so I think I think uh I think there's a lot going on with how this has been presented to the public, and so I'm really looking forward to the post agenda that's been scheduled.

I know there's a lot of criticism around the public engagement around this.

And so I think hopefully hopefully you all recognize that this is part of it, and then also the post agenda, which will be hosted by, I believe, Councilman Mosley.

Yes.

And that'll be in coordination with the URA.

Members have uh time to ask questions.

That's really our fact-finding mission.

And I just hope we can all just get on the same page with this fact-finding mission, which uh I feel like I'm on the phone every day with uh email uh in in the community or whether it's uh you know talking to members on the phone about it, you know, in our offices, trying to understand, you know, what we all know about uh the trip proposal, and so as I continue to learn, um my understanding, and because this is the f this this trip would encompass most of most of my um it would encompass most of my district, being the the strip, parts of the North Shore, and then also downtown.

It it feels very similar to uh what we were going through two years ago whenever the headlines were talking about how we continue to lose our tax base downtown, and there was this big push for conversion, and I know that the past administration put uh well, I think this actually started two administrations ago, but whatever.

It was all it was all went through the last administration where there were a lot of dollars that went through to ARPA dollars to get you know through the URA, uh similar process, or they looked at the underwriting of projects, and and that uh I believe it was at the tune of at least a couple million dollars for projects that were being done in downtown, and and and that happened already.

Um so I think I'm not sure if all those projects are completely funded, but we continue to see my my understanding we continue to see projects that aren't completely funded uh because the value is uh less than what actually would take to get the project done.

And so I think a big kind of light bulb for me that keeps going off when we have these conversations is that I feel like this this always gets lost.

So I just want to take a second to talk about this.

That and I think we've all benefited from this.

We're just not really figuring out that this is uh you know part of how we all live every day, is that a quarter of our tax base for real estate tax was the downtown area.

It was downtown.

It was downtown that was supporting 25% of our tax base.

And in the current years, you saw all three tax embodies raise taxes.

That just didn't happen because you know, we um like something magic happened.

Like that was a sort of that was uh something that was happening before COVID.

During COVID, we saw that really explode in terms of where tax revenue uh really decreased, real estate tax revenue really decreased.

And you saw this council trying to take action previous, already previously to try and support uh that losing tax base.

And these are all things that we really benefit from uh you know, those taxes are obviously things that we all benefit from.

I mean, during Act 4 Act 47, we weren't doing vision zero, we weren't doing projects that really make our neighborhood safe in the streets.

There was never a speed hump put in during vision, I'm sorry, during Act 47.

So there's a lot of things that you know, since Act 47, we've been able to spend money on.

We want to continue to spend money.

We have an we have uh trust funds that we're able to go into neighborhoods and make a difference through OCHS, the Office of Community Health and Safety.

We want to keep those programs going.

And so I know that language like I'll just say it, developers for some reason that has really, even though there's affordable housing developers, that word alone is very scary and and and to a population, uh especially especially an activist population.

And added words like giving and subsidizing and handouts, those are all you know, terms that really sound like it's energizing a lot of people here.

Those are all loans in this current program, from what I've understood.

And uh I'm actually not sure if anything that I say to people that gave comment, this would even resonate because I feel like you have to make I feel like sometimes when I talk to um some people that are really energized around liking uh you know people who build things uh and actually you know pay taxes, like actually pay the pay 25% of our tax base are always evil individuals.

So I'm actually not sure if anything I say will will be good uh for any of you, but on this side of the table, there are working families downtown that rely on those jobs in these buildings.

So if you're a cleaner, if you're a security guard, you rely on that that job.

And we're constantly being contacted by unions to call these property owners to make sure that whenever they whenever they drop the contract, that all of us here at this table are staying in the streets to make sure that those people get their jobs back.

So there's a huge economy that we're all being a little we're being short-sighted about when we talk about what we're trying to do here.

And as I continue to learn about this, yes, I hear I hear words like risk.

And I'm concerned about that too.

And that's why the first tranche would just be related to certain projects that are literally already getting built.

You can drive around PNC Park and you can see that that property right across from PNC Park that's getting built.

So whenever that property actually gets completed, then we will see uh the value in that whenever they start paying taxes.

That's part of the that's one of the projects that will pay back some some of this pay back this bond, which will be a first bond.

If this doesn't go well the first time, then we yes, we should continue to look at why uh this you know, why the the risk that we foresee now is actually true.

It's actually not a good strategy.

But we would, for my understanding, we would see like a first tranche of 25 to 40 million, and then after that, we would see another one, and then that will be we would understand how those projects would get paid back.

And continue to try and understand and learn about this.

It was a great conversation with the URA recently to learn that all of these loans that have been done through TIFFs and TRIDs have all been paid back.

The URA has a zero default on loans like this.

So, you know, we talk about support in the tax base, we really need to make sure that we continue to support downtown in a lot of different ways.

And you see that with parks, you see that with Market Square Parks, Arts Landing.

I mean, these are all great projects that uh are supporting downtown.

And continuing to see this support, I think is important.

Um so as I continue to learn and try so I have this, I have this idea that I think this is a really important thing.

I hope you all do too, that's so that supporting our 25% of our taxes is an important thing.

And then I also have this idea of like trying to learn how to really really support that.

And I'm not hearing any of the other any other ideas, honestly.

There's there's uh there's no other ideas that I'm hearing from council members to support this this tax base, and seems like the only solution is to continue raising taxes if we don't continue to try and support uh our 25 25% of our tax base.

Um another point that I recently learned from the URA, and there's numbers around this, and this is something that we involve in the in the post agenda, is that how these dollars could work for us.

So with these doll with these projects where uh from my understanding, like I said, we'll wait for the post agenda for all the facts we hear, but that money spent in TIFFs or TRIDS, they are they're um it's up to the tune of 10 times the amount of economic activity happens from those dollars.

So these are these are this is not new of how the URA has invested in projects.

Like I said, even in the last administration, there were projects that were invested in.

This continues to be a thing throughout the years, and I'm hoping that uh we all can just get on the same page and really just talk about the facts here because when I hear language being used like robbed and uh, you know, this this is very this and I didn't realize this energizes people, but this is not helping the conversation of how we get to really making sure that people in neighborhoods have their streets paved, their trash picked up, and we don't continue to raise their taxes.

So I'm willing to have that conversation with anyone and try and understand uh how we can all come together so that we can um you know support downtown and really everyone at Pittsburgh at the same time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other member?

Councilman Sharlin?

Yeah, so uh thank you, House President.

And thank you for everyone that came down here today.

Um my comments will be relatively short.

I think Councilman Wilson caught a lot of uh what I was thinking here.

I have the honor of serving with the council president on the URA board.

So I have uh voted for this I I believe twice already, um, and we'll continue to support this.

Uh I don't represent downtown, but downtown is part of all of our districts.

And you know, or we all we all have to be concerned about downtown.

As Councilman Wilson said, uh, about 25% of our property taxes, which is about 25% of our total budget comes from downtown.

So when the question gets asked, how does this benefit other neighborhoods?

How does this benefit home?

What how does this benefit my district in in Oakland Southside and the Hilltop?

If we don't have a strong downtown, we can't do anything anywhere else.

Uh Councilman Wilson rattled off some of these programs, but things like investing in bus shelters and sidewalks and bike share, our unhoused street team, um, traffic calming, all those kinds of projects.

We can't do those projects if we don't have money to do those projects, and we won't have money if we don't have a strong downtown.

So for me, anything we can do to spur um, you know, to stop the bleed in downtown means that we don't have to raise taxes on folks that live in Allentown, folks who live in Knoxville.

If we want a healthy downtown that we can tax, and this is a way to create a healthy downtown for the future and for Pittsburghers uh, you know, to come here.

So for me, this is it's a big deal.

I'm not gonna say it's like an easy thing that I can just absolutely, you know, we we need to know the details of it.

We need you to know the details of it.

But it is something investment downtown is always something that I that I want to support.

And uh I'm thankful that we get to look at this today.

So thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, first of all, I have a message from Councilwoman Warwick that she apologizes that she had to leave so quickly.

She had an emergency board meeting for the equipment leasing authority that was uh last minute um College had to be there to cast a vote.

Um I first of all want to thank everybody for coming down and for tuning in and for spending the time to try to dig in with us on what this means, um, how it works, its shortcomings, any possible benefits that may come out of it, um, so that we can serve to represent you because that is what we're here to do.

Um of the things I think that is a question that I heard repeated was that you know, from the future development of what we'll call a capture area.

Remember that so the proposal that was put in front of council is that for 40 years, new development from the North Shore from downtown, but also all the way up to 33rd Street, not go entirely into the general front.

But even if it's you know 100 million dollar building, the 75% of that annual property tax goes to um a committee or at the URA.

And that the question is I what I heard from the room is you know, what should taxes go for, right?

And this is literally the business of this table.

This is why you get to elect us or unelect us, because you either like the way we allocated your taxes or we you didn't like the way you we allocated your taxes.

Um I heard many people here at the briefing or at the public um hearing say that they really wanted dollars invested in their neighborhoods and in their fellow residents.

Um I heard child care, housing, food, um, and transportation infrastructure, including bridges, including sidewalks, um, including transit.

Um I think that it's uh some of the questions that I had from the last council meeting that uh we may get answers to, unfortunately, next week when we have time for our fact-finding that you will hear next week after you had your public hearing um today, is you know, why 40 years?

And I think that there's a controller's report um on tax abatements that is um done annually because of a resolution I passed requiring the controller's office to report to council and have it available for the public, so it's on the controller's website on tax abatements.

Umfortunately, the last three years have not included tax increment financing, including TRIDS, which is what it's being proposed here today.

But you can look back the 2023 controllers report.

It included both tax abatements and tax increment financing, um, which a TIFF is a trade and a trid is a TIF.

So I think those were all only 20 years.

We've never been asked to do a 40-year.

Um, and then secondly, so I'll be asking that next week.

And then we also, I think all of the previous TIFFs and TRIDs had the same capture area and investment area.

Right?

So it's a it's a brown field, nobody's nobody wants to develop there.

So part of the part of the reason that tax increment financing and trids exist is to say that, well, yeah, there's so much infrastructure to build.

We're gonna dedicate, you know, that there we can promise people who are to build things that there will be infrastructure built.

Um and we'll you know, we we're gonna dedicate some of this future taxes to the building of that infrastructure.

And it remember that the URA doesn't wait for that future infrastructure to future tax property taxes to be paid.

It borrows against them today.

So that's where the bonds and borrowing comes in, right?

So they have a lump sum of future tax revenue in hand today that they allocate.

So those have always been the money has come from and is spent in the same footprint.

In this proposal, they're saying let's do basically three neighborhoods of the city, capture all of their money, but only spend it in the one.

Um then so that's the difference in the boundary map.

And so that's new, and that's different.

And and then I don't believe that that has ever been proposed here that I've seen or that I can see in the records.

Um so that's an outstanding question.

And then um yeah, there are there are definitely some more nuances, I think that we'll be asking in the in the fact-finding thing.

I also heard um from public comment today.

Uh, you know, what is possible in terms of stipulations in this kind of agreement?

And like what power does city council have to reflect your wishes into a TIF or TRID?

I don't know.

We'll be asking that.

And then lastly, I think um there was a question that was unanswered in our last council discussion on the record, which was that you know, some member asked, you know, what if counts a future accounts city council changes its mind and wants to terminate this agreement?

And one answer that was given was well, the legislative body always has the power.

But then if there's an outstanding bond, the legislative body really doesn't have the power.

So which one is it?

I think remains unanswered.

So those are the there's some of the feedback that I heard, some of the questions that I still you know want to make sure that we do get answers to and that you have time to understand and make your voices heard.

Um so again, I appreciate everyone taking the time, spending the time to both help us understand it, understand it yourselves, um, because this is what public process is supposed to be.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you very much.

With that, um having exhausted the business of this public hearing, we are adjourned.